Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURJIT SINOH ALIAS GURMIT SINGH
Versus
State of Punjab
Decide on April 28, 1992
Held: The appellant having taken up a positive plea of alibi. he could prove it from his travel papers which must have been checked and suitably endorsed upon by the railway authorities and/or the Army authorities on his joining his unit The appellant miserably failed to discharge that burden. In this situation the aforesaid misdescriptions/ omissions in the F.I.R. abut the number of shots fired and the absence of Taljit Singhs injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The omission or misdescription of these detail in the F.I.R. which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime. He had taken a leading and prominant part in spearheading and committing it. (Para 7)
Further held: When the two eye-witnesses are natural witnesses of the crime, one being the young wife who would normally be in the company of the husband at 10.30 p.m. on a summer night and the other the nephew of the deceased who had suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence and was thus a stamped witness, not much importance is to be attached to this aspect of the case. The venture is futile. (Para 8)
Judgment
( 1 ) PUNCHHI,j. :- This appealis directed against the judgment and order dated 26-3-1981 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 1979 whereby the acquittal of the appellant was set aside and his conviction recorded under Section 302/ 34, IPC for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. 00 in default whereof further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Besides, conviction was also recorded under Section 449, IPC and under Section 326/34, IPC for which he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and three years, respectively, and to pay fine of Rs. 500 and 200/ - respectively with default sentences. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the entire fine was ordered to be paid to Jaswinder Kaur, the widow of the deceased.
( 2 ) THE appellant was in military service. On the day of occurrence, that is, on 13-5-78 he was in his village, Tut Sher Singh. The prosecution case is that on that day at 10. 30 p. m. he along with his brothers Gurmit Singh and Mohan Singh and two others Sukhraj Pal Singh alias Laddi and -Kulwant Singh alias Kanti of another village scaled over the wall of the house of Mohinder Singh, deceased, and climbed to the roof where the deceased and his wife were lying on their cots. The deceased was an important man of the village being the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat as well as being a Director of Cooperative Bank, Jullundur. The appellants brothers and two others were said to be idle loafers, jealous of the position of the deceased. The deceased was an eye-sore for the accused persons, for off and on he had prevented them from indulging in their mischievous activities. At the time of the trespass, the appellant was said to be armed with a pistol, his brothers armed with Kirpans and their two companions with gandasis. They jointly raised voices towards the deceased daring him to run away if he could as he was not to be left alive that day. The deceased got up from his cot and stood on his legs. Immediately the appellant fired two shots from his pistol in quick succession which hit the deceased. The two brothers and the two companions gave kirpan and gandasa injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. Jaswinder Kaur PW 5, the widow of the deceased, who dared not come forward by the instinct of self-preservation, saw the occurrence and raised alarm. Thereupon the nephew of the deceased Taljit Singh PW-2 and mother of the deceased Kartar Kaur came on the roof. Taljit Singh PW-2 was also given injuries by the accused persons other than the appellant. After Taljit Singh and Kartar Kaur had come to the roof the appellant along with his companion left the scene of the occurrence. While the deceased was being taken care of by his family members, they also saw in a close-by field their wheat bundles valued about Rs. 20,000. 00 to 21,000/- burning. In this wheat burning two others that is Jagdish Nahar and Mohinder Ram from two different villages Mudh and Kakar Kalan, respectively, unconnected with the other 5 accused, were accused of having committed the mischief of burning wheat at the instance of the accused persons.
( 3 ) AFTER the occurrence, the deceased was taken on a tractor trolly to civil hospital, Shahkot, but he was found dead by the time he reached there. Thereupon Jaswinder Kaur PW 5 accompanied by her father-in-law Lal Singh came to the police station Shahkot and gave First Information Report at 1. 30 a. m. the following day. Thereupon the investigation, as was expected, commenced and after completion thereof the appellant and six others afore-referred to were sent for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur.
( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant extending to him the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants two brothers, namely Gurmit Singh and Mohan Singh for offences under Section 449 IPC for committing house trespass, 302/34 IPC for comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
